I'm a conservative who feels no need to defend Wall Street. And if many of the conservative proposals were actually implemented, most of this stuff would never have happened. Now my question to you is, why do liberals defend the corruption of their own elected officials? Who is protecting Obama from having to face the music for selecting a bunch of failed financial system bigshots for his advistors and cabinet? Why did Chris Dodd never go down for getting a special mortgage deal from Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide? Who are the retards of Massachusetts who repeatedly place the extremely corrupt Barney Frank in office? Why have Fannie and Freddie not been eradicated? Why is Bernanke still in office? Why did Greenspan, who seems never to have been right about ANYTHING, continue to receive appointments? Why is Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act never mentioned in this movie?
This film actually illustrates the folly of associating Goldman Sachs and "Wall Street" with Republicans. If only it were that simple! What is alarming is the way in which it seems each Whitehouse administration has essentially been beholden to Wall Street, both Republican AND Democrat.
As a true conservative, I am under no obligation to defend either President Bush. Neither of them were conservatives, since they demonstrated before they ever came to the Whitehouse, a bipartisan love for spending taxpayers money, and showing no especial love for or understanding of conservatism. It was the Republican establishment who pre-selected George W. Bush way back in 1996 as the next candidate, it was not an actual grass-roots movement, and his father never really supported Ronald Reagan either.
It is the left-wing media who repeatedly associated Bush's name with such terms as "far-right" and "ultra-conservative" in order to frighten people from voting for him. Those of us who actually are conservatives were never fooled in the slightest.
McCain was an utter disaster, being neither conservative, nor intelligent enough to even "fake" being a conservative. He would have done the same as Bush and Obama, most likely. And it is the fool McCain who was a co-sponsor of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act, which was eventually passed despite low voter interest and no demonstrable need. Campaign finance reform should happen, but it should role back ALL contributions made from institutions, and stop limiting individual contributions, as limitations on individuals' campaign contributions abridges 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY of political speech. There is no reason to have PACs, no reason why companies should be able to donate money, or to lobby, etc. All contributions should be fully public, be paid in a transparent manner. The way in which PACs are bundling up money means big lobbyists have too much influence. There is no excuse whatsoever for organizations like the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, SIEU, or any labor unions should be allowed to donate to political campaigns.
Furthermore, if government would get out of more industries, there would be less need for lobbyists in the first place.
However, my last comment does not mean that there should be NO regulation--obviously more regulation of the right sort needs to be in place. But we need to see that in the end, personal morality makes a huge difference, and that even in the presence of loads of regulators, no brakes whatsoever were put on any of the dangerous business practices indulged in by so so many. We had the Federal Reserve, loads of financial advisors, politicians promising "transparency", accounting standards, ratings agencies, not to mention legislators whose job was to SERVE their constituents, but who were lining their own pockets instead. (ie Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, etc.) However, none of these individuals did their jobs and obviously were busy looking out for #1.
In the end, what, other than a culture where individuals have more of a sense of morality, can restrain us human beings from living exclusively to the detriment of others? Sadly, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, people's personal faith are all powerful forces shaping our inner psyches with an idea of what is right and what is wrong. And many of the same crooks and cheats in Washington DC have assiduously attempted to stamp out the presence of a higher moral code in American society. I think we are on a collision course with the reality of innate human depravity.
reply
share
deeveed
14 years ago
In the end, what, other than a culture where individuals have more of a sense of morality, can restrain us human beings from living exclusively to the detriment of others? Sadly, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, people's personal faith are all powerful forces shaping our inner psyches with an idea of what is right and what is wrong. And many of the same crooks and cheats in Washington DC have assiduously attempted to stamp out the presence of a higher moral code in American society. I think we are on a collision course with the reality of innate human depravity.
Looking back at the debacle, it has always been my view that the disaster we went through was ultimately a disaster of morality within our economic life.
We certainly know how to count the dimes and nickels and make new fiduciary instruments. But unfortunately we succumb to an incredible paucity of moral thinking. I am very pessimistic that this will be eradicated. As we go on economically, I'm afraid the bets will be bigger and supposedly "better". We'll hear of a "new life" for America! A chicken in every pot! A new way to "spend & save" We've been fed a line before and we'll get it again until until we can understand and perhaps stifle that "innate human depravity".
reply
share